Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I
unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any
more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community
for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.

Hi everyone,
I released WSS4R:
http://www.rubyforge.org/projects/wss4r.
WSS4R is a subset of a web service security standards implementation.
It's
based on
soap4r and tested with Microsoft .NET WSE 2.0 and Sun Java JWSDP 2.0.
WSS4R
supports username
authentication, signing and encryption. It also has limited support for
actionwebservice / rails.
Currently, there is no documentation, but various examples for building
clients and servers with
ruby, java and C#. It is tested with ruby 1.8.4 and the latest soap4r
release.
WSS4R is released unter the GPL.
Please mail bugs, suggestions and patches to
Roland.Schmitt(at)web.de
Best regards,
Roland

On 01/02/06, Roland Schmitt <Roland.Schmitt@web.de> wrote:
> I released WSS4R:>> http://www.rubyforge.org/projects/wss4r.
Very cool.
> WSS4R is released unter the GPL.
Would it be possible to get you to consider releasing this under
Ruby's license, which is effectively a dual licence between a
commercially-friendly open source licence and the GNU GPL?
I may be in the minority, but I believe that the GNU GPL is a very bad
licence for libraries in a highly dynamic environment such as Ruby, at
least if it is the only licence. (This is one reason I've never looked
further at a number of libraries and have in at least one instance
created a clean implementation of a ported library.)
-austin

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> I may be in the minority, but I believe that the GNU GPL is a very bad> licence for libraries in a highly dynamic environment such as Ruby, at least> if it is the only licence. (This is one reason I've never looked further at> a number of libraries and have in at least one instance created a clean> implementation of a ported library.)
i hate thinking about this stuff and have just released under ruby's
licence
to avoid issues - see any problem with that?
-a

On 01/02/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Austin Ziegler wrote:> > I may be in the minority, but I believe that the GNU GPL is a very bad> > licence for libraries in a highly dynamic environment such as Ruby, at least> > if it is the only licence. (This is one reason I've never looked further at> > a number of libraries and have in at least one instance created a clean> > implementation of a ported library.)> i hate thinking about this stuff and have just released under ruby's licence> to avoid issues - see any problem with that?
Not at all. My problem here is that WSS4R is under GNU GPL only, not
dually licensed. It is the GNU GPL that is a problem, not the Ruby
licence.
-austin

On 2/1/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not at all. My problem here is that WSS4R is under GNU GPL only, not> dually licensed. It is the GNU GPL that is a problem, not the Ruby> licence.
That's really highly subjective. Outside of Ruby, I *always* use the
GPL.
The license of Ruby only holds ground because the GPL is there. The
terms and conditions that Matz wrote are highly permissive, but do
very little to protect an authors rights. It would not make me feel
comfortable to use a piece of software under a non-GPL compliant
situtaiton, because I would not trust the legal protections of the
plain Ruby license without the GPL's backing.
Still, in interest of avoiding a flame war, myself being a strong
supporter of the Free Software Foundation and copyleft in general, I
use the License of Ruby for ruby applications, because this tends to
be a reasonable compromise that can potentially preserve copyleft
while also leaving the doors open for non-free applications or (in the
better case) free applications that link with non-free software.
So, to keep *most* people happy, the disguntive license works just fine.

On 01/02/06, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not at all. My problem here is that WSS4R is under GNU GPL only, not>> dually licensed. It is the GNU GPL that is a problem, not the Ruby>> licence.> That's really highly subjective. Outside of Ruby, I *always* use the> GPL.
Hmmm. Not really subjective. The GNU GPL is explicitly a highly
restrictive licence. The GPLv3 is going to be even more restrictive,
although it looks like it might play better with open source licences.
> The license of Ruby only holds ground because the GPL is there. The> terms and conditions that Matz wrote are highly permissive, but do> very little to protect an authors rights.
Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? I personally suspect
confusion in what is meant, but the Ruby license is in fact little
different than the MIT-style licence or the modified BSD licence, which
both provide better protection than the GNU GPL for authors' "moral
rights" (which most emphatically do not exist in the US or Canada) of
insisting to be recognised as the author of a particular work. The GPLv3
will, again, handle this better.
> Still, in interest of avoiding a flame war, myself being a strong> supporter of the Free Software Foundation and copyleft in general,
[...]
And this is where you and I differ. I do *not* support "copyleft." I
*do* support open source. I hold no opinion on the FSF proper, but have
great dislike for RMS and his stances.
I do maintain and will always maintain that my applications and
libraries released under an MIT-style licence will always be freer than
anything released under the GNU GPL, any version.
As you said, though, the Ruby disjunctive licence is (almost) the best
choice for Ruby applications and libraries. I still use the MIT licence
where I can.
-austin

On 2/1/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Not at all. My problem here is that WSS4R is under GNU GPL only, not> >> dually licensed. It is the GNU GPL that is a problem, not the Ruby> >> licence.> > That's really highly subjective. Outside of Ruby, I *always* use the> > GPL.>> Hmmm. Not really subjective. The GNU GPL is explicitly a highly> restrictive licence. The GPLv3 is going to be even more restrictive,> although it looks like it might play better with open source licences.
It is a highly protective license, yes. All of it's restrictions are
centered around ensuring permanent protection of the essential
freedoms.
> will, again, handle this better.
It's not a legal document. It does not have adequate definitions and
does not qualify as a free software license. It is not recognized by
the OSI (unlike the MIT/BSD licenses), and it simply does not have
adequate legal backing. If a lawsuit was fought and won over the Ruby
license, my opinions might change. But it's truely not something I'd
be willing to bet on.
In fact, I would be much more comfortable seeing the Ruby license
written so that it can be recognized by the FSF and the OSI as a Free
and Open Source license.
If this was the case, I would find less discomfort in it.
> > Still, in interest of avoiding a flame war, myself being a strong> > supporter of the Free Software Foundation and copyleft in general,> [...]>> And this is where you and I differ. I do *not* support "copyleft." I> *do* support open source. I hold no opinion on the FSF proper, but have> great dislike for RMS and his stances.
I find RMS to be a zealot, but many of his stances make sense when the
zeal is stripped away. I try to be pragmatic in my decisions, and
idealistic in my discussions, so I suppose my point is that though I
do support copyleft, I should not like to impose it in places where it
might be harmful.
However, I should like to keep the door open for those who wish to
support it.
> I do maintain and will always maintain that my applications and> libraries released under an MIT-style licence will always be freer than> anything released under the GNU GPL, any version.
Yes, you grant more freedom. But you do not ensure the protection of
these freedoms.
Granting an infinite amount of freedom to be stripped away easily in
the future is to me worst than granting some freedom with a few
responsibilities attached which help to ensure it's survival.
Of course, the concept of freedom is subjective in of itself. If you
mean, "I want to give people the freedom to do whatever they want with
my code", then yes, MIT/BSD would be a good way to go.
If you mean, "I want my code to remain free forever", certainly, the
GPL offers the strongest protection for this.
> As you said, though, the Ruby disjunctive licence is (almost) the best> choice for Ruby applications and libraries. I still use the MIT licence> where I can.
Agreed. The thing you are giving with the disjunctive license of Ruby
is the freedom to choose, and that is A Good Thing.

On 01/02/06, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com> wrote:
> centered around ensuring permanent protection of the essential> freedoms.
Um. Strictly speaking, once an open source package has been released
under *any* licence, that version is perpetually available under that
licence. The GNU GPL is more related to an "I'll show you mine if you
show me yours" sort of relationship. It ensures that no derivatives can
be anything but GNU GPL. But for any given version of a project, the
licence is perpetual (unless explicitly stated otherwise, and there's no
open source licence with a time limit).
>>> The license of Ruby only holds ground because the GPL is there. The>>> terms and conditions that Matz wrote are highly permissive, but do>>> very little to protect an authors rights.
[...]
> It's not a legal document.
[...]
I'm not sure that's true; I would be unsurprised if Matz's employer's
lawyers didn't go over the licence before release. It is not a common
*US* legal document, but that does not mean that it is not a legal
document or a licence agreement in any case. I can make a licence that
says:
You may do anything with this software for any purpose whatsoever
as long as you don't claim that you wrote it.
That sentence is a licence. It's a perfectly legal and enforceable
licence, too.
I suspect there are two reasons it doesn't qualify as an OSI open source
licence: I do not know if it has ever been submitted for analysis, and
OSI is attempting to reduce the number of available licences to reduce
licensing confusion.
I don't care if it's a "free software" licence; that's a copyleft
conceit that I find completely useless (and obfuscatory, since the word
"free" is definitely intended to mean something different than it
usually does when applied to copylefted software).
I, too, would like to see the Ruby source under the current Ruby licence
adapted to an MIT/BSD-style licence + GNU GPL disjunctive licence, but I
see no pressing need for it. I mostly want it to reduce the broad
confusion involving the number of possible licences.
[...]
>> I do maintain and will always maintain that my applications and>> libraries released under an MIT-style licence will always be freer>> than anything released under the GNU GPL, any version.> Yes, you grant more freedom. But you do not ensure the protection of> these freedoms.
As I noted above, I do in fact ensure the protection of those freedoms
by the fact that my software is licensed. I do not require that my
licensees, however, pass those freedoms along to their users. But the
freedoms and protections granted by my licence on *my* software are
permanent.
[...]
> If you mean, "I want my code to remain free forever", certainly, the> GPL offers the strongest protection for this.
No, it doesn't. It means "I want my code and all of its possible
derivatives to remain freely available forever." The MIT/BSD guarantees
that the code will always be free.
I'm not trying to be difficult here; I'm trying to correct some
misperceptions that I've seen for the last seventeen years (when I first
encountered the GNU GPL in any form). The GNU GPL is a perfectly good
licence if you want to provide a tremendously strong restriction on the
access to source and its derivatives, but it isn't "more free" than
other licences. (My main problem with the GNU GPL is not its license
provisions; it is tied between (a) the nonsensical preamble which has
political implications that I do not support and (b) the
misappropriation of the concept of "freedom".)
-austin

From: "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@gmail.com>
>> I do maintain and will always maintain that my applications and> libraries released under an MIT-style licence will always be freer than> anything released under the GNU GPL, any version.
Freer? Yes, if you are talking about the individual freedom of
anyone extending your libraries and applications to close the source.
Not so free when the authors of modifications to your applications
and libraries decide after some years to abandon the project and
refuse to open the source, stranding the userbase at wherever
development left off.
id Software are my heroes. They've developed a series of world
class cutting edge game engines (DOOM, Quake, Quake II, Quake III)
which they have released open source under the GPL. Typically
they've open sourced the previous engine right about when their
next game is released. (Quake III was just open sourced last
August, when Quake IV came out.)
I'm trying to think how to explain the current situation with
Quake II in the fewest words. The back-story is, that the first
license under which id released the "game" module code back in
February 1988, was not sufficiently clear about keeping the source
code open. The license did stipulate that id retains the copyright
and that all modifications were to be distributed free of charge.
But what we have now, is an 8 year old game, with a still-active
community, still wanting to play various modifications of the
game. But some of these modifications are closed source, long
abandoned by the authors. Some no longer run at all, others have
bugs that could be easily fixed if the source were available.
I'm a "pick the most appropriate license for the situation" kind
of guy. Ruby/MIT/BSD style for some things, LGPL for others, even
GPL if the circumstances make sense. I think GPL is ideal for
what id Software has done with their games.
But I wouldn't agree that the only definition of "freer" worth
considering is one that allows authors modifying our libraries
and applications the freedom to close the source. Because for
the eight-year-old Quake II community, these abandoned closed-
source game modifications aren't feeling very free at all.
Regards,
Bill

On 01/02/06, Bill Kelly <billk@cts.com> wrote:
> From: "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@gmail.com>>> I do maintain and will always maintain that my applications and>> libraries released under an MIT-style licence will always be freer>> than anything released under the GNU GPL, any version.> Freer? Yes, if you are talking about the individual freedom of anyone> extending your libraries and applications to close the source.
No, I mean freer. Period. I place minimal restrictions on my software. I
most emphatically do not place the restriction that someone has to open
up *their* source just because they want to use a library that I have
written.
> Not so free when the authors of modifications to your applications and> libraries decide after some years to abandon the project and refuse to> open the source, stranding the userbase at wherever development left> off.
That, to be honest, is completely irrelevant. As long as I'm the active,
primary developer on a project that I'm working on, I won't accept code
that isn't under the *same* licence that I released it under. If someone
wants to fork my code and make their fork closed source, that's their
right and decision. I fully support them in that. But the original
source -- mine -- is still available and is perpetually available under
the licence(s) which I granted at release.
This is much more true now with long-lasting resources like RubyForge.
[...]
> But I wouldn't agree that the only definition of "freer" worth> considering is one that allows authors modifying our libraries> and applications the freedom to close the source. Because for> the eight-year-old Quake II community, these abandoned closed-> source game modifications aren't feeling very free at all.
You know, I don't particularly disagree with that stance. But I'm not
really arguing about the definition of "freer"; it is a *fact* that I am
explicitly not setting restrictions, and as such my source *is* less
encumbered. Honestly, I'm much less concerned about second- and
third-level recipients ability to hack code that, while based on my
code, is no longer my code.
That said, I also don't have a problem with a licence that carries
restrictions similar to the GNU GPL. I just wish the damned preamble
weren't part of the GNU GPL. Just give me a licence that does what the
GNU GPL does without the pseudo-political nonsense, and I might use it
as it's appropriate. (FWIW, I am of the opinion that the GNU LGPL is a
wholly worthless licence, and feel that the MPL and its derivatives
accomplish the same thing as the GNU GPL in a much better manner.)
-austin

On 2/1/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
]
> That said, I also don't have a problem with a licence that carries> restrictions similar to the GNU GPL. I just wish the damned preamble> weren't part of the GNU GPL. Just give me a licence that does what the> GNU GPL does without the pseudo-political nonsense, and I might use it> as it's appropriate. (FWIW, I am of the opinion that the GNU LGPL is a> wholly worthless licence, and feel that the MPL and its derivatives> accomplish the same thing as the GNU GPL in a much better manner.)
I am again, a proponent of the preamble, but I believe there is a GPL
style license out there without the preamble, I forget what it was
called.
The GPL was designed to make a social and political stance, and
removing the ethical concerns emasculates the purpose of the GPL,
whether you agree with it's ideals or not.
The GNU LGPL is worthless. Even the FSF[1] concedes to that.
A disjunctive licensing scheme is a much better approach, if avoiding
the direct assertion of copyleft is desirable.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

On 2/1/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> show me yours" sort of relationship. It ensures that no derivatives can> be anything but GNU GPL. But for any given version of a project, the> licence is perpetual (unless explicitly stated otherwise, and there's no> open source licence with a time limit).
I am not sure if what I said was clear enough. I mean, the GPL is
meant to be protective of software freedom in general, not just 'your
software's freedom'
I believe in Share and Share-alike. However, things I release to the
community, I know may benefit people in situations the GPL wouldn't
cover.
I would normally use the GPL on it's own in situations where I wanted
to ensure that any published software using my code was free software
as well. If I were working on commercial free software, for instance,
I would want to preserve my business assets by ensuring that no one
could lock them away under their own facade and then distribute
non-free applications derived from it. There is no better license for
ensuring this than the GPL, and to me, offers protection without the
burden of a proprietary licensing scheme.
However, in the case of writing a library, I'd almost certainly want
to make the library as unencumbered as possible, so a disjunctive
license allowing the choice of whether or not copyleft will apply is a
good way to do that.
> > It's not a legal document.> I'm not sure that's true;
I should have stated this more clearly. It's not an easily defendable
or well defined legal document. And yes, I am basing this on US laws.
Is this document easily defendable elsewhere? I am curious to know
that.
> I would be unsurprised if Matz's employer's> lawyers didn't go over the licence before release.
That is something I am curious about.
> You may do anything with this software for any purpose whatsoever> as long as you don't claim that you wrote it.>> That sentence is a licence. It's a perfectly legal and enforceable> licence, too.
Yes. But licenses can be invalidated if they are not carefully
designed. If a lack of proper definition results in unintended
loopholes, the chance that it will be exploited is much higher.
> I suspect there are two reasons it doesn't qualify as an OSI open source> licence: I do not know if it has ever been submitted for analysis, and> OSI is attempting to reduce the number of available licences to reduce> licensing confusion.
If people want to call it an open-source license, it should be
submitted for approval.
Otherwise, it's just a very permissive license, by definition.
I believe it does meet the Open Source Definition, but it does not
meet the Free Software definition. It could with some minor
modifications
> I don't care if it's a "free software" licence; that's a copyleft> conceit that I find completely useless (and obfuscatory, since the word> "free" is definitely intended to mean something different than it> usually does when applied to copylefted software).
Free as in freedom does apply to non-copylefted licenses.
There are dozens of GPL compatible free software licenses, both
copylefted and non-copylefted. The MIT license you hold so dearly is
one of them. The license of Ruby (with it's disjunctive choice of the
GPL) is another. Free software licenses simply meet the definition of
Free Software as outlined by the FSF. Which makes no mention of
copyleft.
> I, too, would like to see the Ruby source under the current Ruby licence> adapted to an MIT/BSD-style licence + GNU GPL disjunctive licence, but I> see no pressing need for it. I mostly want it to reduce the broad> confusion involving the number of possible licences.
Same here.
> > If you mean, "I want my code to remain free forever", certainly, the> > GPL offers the strongest protection for this.>> No, it doesn't. It means "I want my code and all of its possible> derivatives to remain freely available forever." The MIT/BSD guarantees> that the code will always be free.
But if your code becomes embedded in a number of proprietary
applications without your knowledge, and the clients of these
companies have no clue it's yours, how free is that code which is
contained in that application?
I understand what you are saying. However, I don't like the idea of
my code ending up locked in a vault somewhere where someone with more
marketing power than me can put a nice facade on it and basically take
full credit for my work.
I guess this is just a matter of opinion, here.
> I'm not trying to be difficult here; I'm trying to correct some> misperceptions that I've seen for the last seventeen years (when I first> encountered the GNU GPL in any form). The GNU GPL is a perfectly good> licence if you want to provide a tremendously strong restriction on the> access to source and its derivatives, but it isn't "more free" than> other licences. (My main problem with the GNU GPL is not its license> provisions; it is tied between (a) the nonsensical preamble which has> political implications that I do not support and (b) the> misappropriation of the concept of "freedom".)
I reiterate that the GPL is about protecting software freedom, not
granting more or less than any other free software license. And it's
not just about your software, it's about software freedom in general.
Many people do not support such a bold cause. To me, that's fine.
I'm not trying to convert anyone into being copyleft or GPL proponents.
I just don't like when the GPL is presented as evil or nonsensical.
It's not. It just has a very precise intention that many find
threatening, but others find as an ethical highground.
That having been said, most rubyists try not to make this decisions
for the users of their software, but let them make the ethical
decision for themselves, by providing software under the Ruby license.
I think we've already agreed that this is a good thing.
I do not have interest of stirring the mud about the GPL where it is
not invited. I have defended it on this list whenever someone makes a
broad claim about it, but I simply do not want to fight over something
as subjective as the meaning of the word "freedom" on a public forum.
The signal vs. noise ratio deteriorates rapidly on threads like these,
so if you'd like to continue discussing the nature of the GPL, feel
free to contact me off list.
Otherwise, I think we've both made our points and we've also offered
the same proposed remedy, so not much more need be said about this.

Hi Austin,
...
> environment such as Ruby, at least if it is the only licence.> (This is one reason I've never looked further at a number of> libraries and have in at least one instance created a clean> implementation of a ported library.)>
In fact WSS4R is released under both GPL and ruby's license as stated in
the
included README file. I've just forgotten to mention it in the
anouncement.
Regards,
Roland

On 02/02/06, Roland Schmitt <Roland.Schmitt@web.de> wrote:
> Hi Austin,> > Very cool.> > > WSS4R is released unter the GPL.> >> > Would it be possible to get you to consider releasing this> > under Ruby's license, which is effectively a dual licence> > between a commercially-friendly open source licence and the GNU GPL?> In fact WSS4R is released under both GPL and ruby's license as stated in the> included README file. I've just forgotten to mention it in the anouncement.
Excellent!
-austin

Hi,
I was wondering if anybody had done any work with MS Active Directory.
I
need to do basic stuff like searching for users objects by attribute,
and
creating and updating user objects.
I've come across Ruby/LDAP and was wondering if anyone has used it. If
so,
what are your experiences and would you recommend it? If not, what are
the
alternatives.
TIA!

On 2/2/06, Vince Puzzella <vpuz@rogers.com> wrote:
> TIA!>>
I've done a bit of AD/Exchange automation. Since I was running it
from a windows machine I was able to use win32ole. This allowed me to
use pretty much anything I could have done in VBscript in Ruby
instead.

On 2/2/06, Vince Puzzella <vpuz@rogers.com> wrote:
> Hi,>> I was wondering if anybody had done any work with MS Active Directory. I> need to do basic stuff like searching for users objects by attribute, and> creating and updating user objects.>> I've come across Ruby/LDAP and was wondering if anyone has used it. If so,> what are your experiences and would you recommend it? If not, what are the> alternatives.>
Ruby/LDAP (and ActiveLDAP, which is written on top of it) are both
quite nice, and support Active Directory.
Unfortunately, Ruby/LDAP is a C extension, and currently doesn't
compile on Windows. I'm hoping to either have time to look at that
myself, or hire somebody to do it for me, in the near future.
Ultimately, I'd like to see a pure Ruby LDAP library (like Perl has a
pure Perl library.), rather than one that depends on external
libraries and other complexities. I'm currently too much of an LDAP
novice to promise such a thing, though.
If you want to talk to Active Directory from a Linux, BSD, etc, etc,
system, that works right now. Doing it from Windows requires some
contortions.

I've used Ruby/LDAP on Windows from the cygwin
environment. It reads and writes to AD with no problems.
The only thing that didn't work was LDAP/S - but
I didn't spend much time working on it.
My experiences have all been positve, and I would
highly reccomend it.
Vance

I've tried to compile ruby/ldap in cygwin but I can't get it to work. It
complains about being unable to remap etc.so. Seems like a permission
problem but I can't figure it out. Has anyone got any idea on how to do
this? The documentation says that you should compile it in cygwin and
then copy the files to your normal ruby installation. Is it possible for
someone who has compiled it to share the compiled files?